Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Enrique's avatar

Note that Peru had a somewhat similar growth path after shock therapy and liberalization: moderate growth under Fujimori and faster growth after he left. As much as I despise Pinochet, I think your article may underestimate the long term impact of structural reforms, even if it's likely true that the democratic environment that followed his government was more favorable for growth. One important fact is that Peru's and Chile's new and much more free-market oriented constitutions remained even after they left, and this helped prevent macroeconomic policy mismanagement. Peru's constitution explicitly forbids the government borrowing from the central bank, for example.

I agree that Chile (and Peru) still rely too much on commodities and are not precisely industralized economies. However, they are macroeconomically much more sound that most latin american economies.

Expand full comment
Am's avatar

Zambia was a copper based economy too. Still probably is but became an highly indebted poor country needing debt forgiveness. Pinochet was a monster whereas Zambian Presidents were, most of them, just corrupt. But it may be worth comparing them to see whst the commodity curse did to Zambia. However not so many available resources, comment or research exists for Zambia.

Expand full comment
55 more comments...

No posts